0408 Bogus Stem Cell Research
Who would have thought that in this age of science worship, bogus science could become such an effective tool in the hands of presumably intelligent, well informed and morally sensitive political leaders? Of course, as a slim majority in Congress continues to prove, being intelligent never guarantees one’s being accurately informed or morally sensitive. Nor are intellectual blindness and moral callousness respecters of party affiliation. The most recent debacle came from both sides of the aisle when the U.S. Senate, including both of Michigan’s lawmakers, could not acknowledge what the Bible, every world religion, every past civilization, 10,000 scientific studies and thirty eight states have demonstrated as sacred; one-man, one-woman marriage.
America’s federal republic was framed in such a way as to charge members of the House of Representatives with expressing the will of the people, while the members of the Senate were to uphold the will of their respective states as whole entities. With thirty eight states having defense of marriage laws already on the books, the Senate vote should have been a 76 to 24 slam dunk for traditional marriage. The system did not work because twenty eight individuals defied the will of their states. They aligned themselves with highly prejudiced, grievously flawed studies on the nature of homosexual relationships. From that false foundation they surrendered to the idea that marriage in same-gender form would still be the same. The less courageous hid behind DOMA’s and states’ rights already neutered by federal courts.
During this session of Congress, it has become clear that many legislators no longer feel it necessary to honor their mandated responsibilities. The actions of 264 members of Congress, 51 Republicans, and 211 Democrats (and two independents), with six of Michigan’s own as signatories, has also demonstrated an ambiguous morality of convenience and politicized pseudo-science. On April 28th and June 4th, letters from the House and Senate respectively went to President Bush in an attempt to publicly pressure him into relaxing restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research. If media spin were believable, it would appear that a normally feuding group of lawmakers found common consensus against a naïve president.
The reality is that Bush seems to be part of a Washington minority that is still able to respect life while simultaneously recognizing genuine science and sound research. The fact is that, aside from destroying unborn children, stem cells taken from embryos are very unstable and have never yielded one single useful outcome. Contrary to Senator Hillary Clinton’s blatant mistruth delivered during her Democratic national convention speech, there is no ban on embryonic research. It is perfectly legal. It just does not have unfettered access to government’s deep pockets. NBC”s July 25th “Dateline” perfectly exemplified the current campaign of brazen misinformation and politicized emotionalism. By not even mentioning adult stem cell successes, the program deceptively promoted the use of citizens’ tax monies to harvest tiny “spare” unborn people for a cause which already has a less barbaric solution.
Adult stem cells are amazing. They are more stable and can be harvested safely from bone marrow, the pancreas, the liver, the brain and the umbilical cord. They have been successfully used to treat Parkinson’s Disease, Systemic lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, non- Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, renal cell Carcinoma, and at least 35 other diseases. Bottom line – there is no medical progress/bioethics dilemma.
Why would any elected official want to see federal money drained from ethically unchallenged, successful research to fund research that is a loser? Something more is driving folks like the Levin brothers, Kilpatrick, Conyers and Dingell. As in the marriage debate, it is as much about consequences as it is about any particular cause. No scientist or politician can know the point after conception at which one becomes a person. So, having abandoned clear Biblical revelation, they understand the consequences of admitting embryonic personhood. Once that concession is made, the specter of Nazi-style human experimentation would have to be faced. Abortion “rights” advocates would have to wrestle with the implications of infanticide. Maybe, just maybe, wise and sensitive statesmen might figure out a way to help childless marriages provide good homes for those frozen fertility clinic “spare” babies.